I agree with Ed. Upgraded hardware trumps all else when it comes to sim investments.

5 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

You have not mentioned your GPU, but you need a GTX 1070 or better for P3D..

My GPU a GTX 1060 6GB. So I guess my GPU will be "Paws Up" most of the time in protest of all of the hard work. So this will definitely be a concern, I am not going to upgrade my GPU just for P3D. Now, if my card goes bad then yes I will upgrade to the best and then switch.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Best

Forshaw.

I have spent thousands after first upgrading to P3D on the v4.0 64bit release. And never having an out of memory is worth it.

1 hour ago, edpatino said:

I don't know if mentioned before, but please remember that FSX is a 32-bit application, and this makes it prone to Out-Of-Memory errors (OOM). P3Dv4.x is a 64-bit application and that makes it a lot more stable and you can forget about those hateful OOMs. To me FSX is a thing of the past. If you think your CPU/GPU are not strong enough to handle P3Dv4, I would recommend you to upgrade your hardware, that will always be IMHO better than to keep working with and old sim.

Good luck and Cheers, Ed

 

Hi Ed;

Totally agree. I wouldn't get a sim and run it on a mediocre hardware. My hardware is pretty good for FSX and again I am not getting any OOM and haven't gotten it in years. My GPU is a GTX 1060 6 GB and Bert stated that I would need at lease a 1070. So if I am not getting OOM in FSX I am not going to switch to P3D and then get OOM because my hardware can't cut it.

I am due for a new rig next year so I would rather wait and do everything then.

Thanks again.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

I’ve been running P3D on a GTX 1050.  My frames aren’t the best - usually around 30, and will drop down to 15 or so in dense scenery.  I could get more with some tweaking, but frankly, it isn’t enough of a bother for me. You can definitely run P3D with a 1060.

I have never had an OOM in P3D.  I think that you’d need to have a ton of add-on scenery installed to get one.

4 hours ago, Rogen said:

As good as FSX-SE was in the day - P3D v4.5.12 is better by a long shot, and I did the same thing myself - migrated from FSX-SE to P3D.

That's not to say it's perfect but with every release it gets better where as FSX-SE is in limbo land.

P3D does run fine on Windows 7, and a multicore processor with upwards of 4 Ghz and a 1070 vid card are about the min for nice flying.

One thing quite different about P3D is its GPU use. Where FSX-SE will drive the CPU to 100% and use minimal GPU, P3D is the opposite, and will easily drive the GPU to 100% but will rarely drive the CPU to 100% and no more OOM's because P3D v4 is 64bit compared to FSX-SE being 32bit.

Of note the single hardware item I've purchased that helped the most towards really smooth flying was a monitor that could sync to 30 Hz.

This is because P3D includes a vsync option with triple buffering that makes flying super smooth, however in order for the vsync to have an effect the P3D frame rate output has to be somewhat higher than the monitor sync rate, (a 60 Hz monitor would need in excess of 60 fps output).

Once you'e a few addins, orbx scenery and a complex plane (for example) it's rare for P3D to be able to pump out 60 fps, but 30 fps is typically consistanly achievable and will vsync with a 30 Hz capable monitor, and a further plus is you can then pump up those sliders for a better looking sim without going to 100% of GPU use (which will endup killing the frame rate due to overloading).

There are options for vsync @ half monitor Hz rates (seach for threads regarding RiaTuner Statistics Server), however IMHO a 30 Hz capable monitor works better.

Also tweeking is not dead in P3D as there are many very useful tweeks that will improve both the look and performance.

Finally I made a vid of @ Orbx's Milford Sound AP of FSX-SE and P3D as a comparison, same machine with almost the exact same addins.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/554991-comparison-of-fsx-se-and-p3d-flying-the-same-scenario/

Cheers

 

 

HI Roger;

Thanks for the breakdown including the details on the monitor (I will also take a look at the video).

The one common denominator I picked up from everyone's comments is the GPU requirement, and it seems that mine (GTX 1060) wouldn't be up for the task. Honestly I think the GTX 1060 is at the limit with FSX IMHO.

I intend to replace my rig next year so I would prefer to wait. Who knows with the new Intel on the way it might just be worth the wait and match every component up nicely.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

34 minutes ago, forshaw said:

Hi Ed;

Totally agree. I wouldn't get a sim and run it on a mediocre hardware. My hardware is pretty good for FSX and again I am not getting any OOM and haven't gotten it in years. My GPU is a GTX 1060 6 GB and Bert stated that I would need at lease a 1070. So if I am not getting OOM in FSX I am not going to switch to P3D and then get OOM because my hardware can't cut it.

I am due for a new rig next year so I would rather wait and do everything then.

Thanks again.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

You must be flying GA and not have a lot of AI or big scenery to not have an out of memory.

One big bonus of P3D even if you do not have an OOM is the ability to use the latest DirectX technology. Tomatoshade (free) and PTA (pay) give your sim a better looking environment. And the other added features of a 64bit sim like rain effects on the windshield. If you can run fsx then you can run p3d!

All Orbx and Carenado is available for p3d if you already have a license for fsx. PMDG and some other addons mostly scenery cost money to upgrade.

Edited August 10, 20196 yr by Boeing or not going

9 minutes ago, _Gladius_ said:

I’ve been running P3D on a GTX 1050.  My frames aren’t the best - usually around 30, and will drop down to 15 or so in dense scenery.  I could get more with some tweaking, but frankly, it isn’t enough of a bother for me. You can definitely run P3D with a 1060.

Interesting, so your performance you just described is exactly what I get with my FSX with lots of add-on and absolutely no OOM,.

My add-ons are:

• PMDG 747-8; iFLY 747-8; QW 787.
• All add-on Airports (I only fly with add-on airports) KJFK, KORD, KLAX; KSFO, KSEA, KMIA, KBOS
• Active Sky Next 2016
• REX4 Texture Direct with Soft clouds
• PRO ATC X

As you can imagine all of these add-on are resource hogs

I get an average of 25-30 FPS with a good weather, overcast but not thunderstorm. On a bad day with storms and lots of clouds it will go down to 15 on approach and landing at a place like KJFK (which I use as a yard stick since NY is the worse), and yes it can get a little jerky but not un-flyable since it my last of only a few seconds.

So my point is I don't want to upgrade to P3D to get very little improvement over what I already have because my hardware is very minimum and not get the real benefits of the switch. I definitely wouldn't fly without the add-on, that's going backwards for me.

Thanks again for your input on this, If I was getting lots of issues with FSX with very little add-ons then yes.

Cheers.

Forshaw.

You will have to rebuy all your PMDG as p3d has a different license.  If you are happy with FSX, stick with it

12 minutes ago, Boeing or not going said:

You must be flying GA and not have a lot of AI or big scenery to not have an out of memory.

One big bonus of P3D even if you do not have an OOM is the ability to use the latest DirectX technology. Tomatoshade (free) and PTA (pay) give your sim a better looking environment. And the other added features of a 64bit sim like rain effects on the windshield. If you can run fsx then you can run p3d!

All Orbx and Carenado is available for p3d if you already have a license for fsx. PMDG and some other addons mostly scenery cost money to upgrade.

If you look at my last post you will see my add-ons. I have and run the biggest resource hogs add-on out there. The reason I don't get any OOM is because I have learned over the years how to tweak my FSX (settings not Config file) my graphics and displays are great. One thing I don't do is after a long flight London to NY I don't keep switching views (wing, engine, 1st class, Econ Class views) back and forth, that can cause some issues, especially if it's bad weather. Other than that I don't ever get OOM. Hence the reason I am reaching out to get good and informative information about switching since I am not unhappy with FSX. But get a sense as to what to expect in terms of improvement if I switch now. I don't want to be disappointed because my expectations were incorrect.

Cheers.

Forshaw

Personally, I would wait at least until P3D v5 is out. We are a long way into the v4 development cycle, and you would have to pay all over again if you wanted to upgrade to v5.

Good point Christopher.

However the decision is not easy taken into account MSFS2020 and the fact that we are at the end of the development cycle of P3Dv4.

The OP could wait until V5 to avoid to pay twice. On the other hand when V5 is out, addons developers will need time to convert their addons, so the OP will have to wait even longer. Whereas we do know that V4 is stable and runs fine, and the vast majority of addons work in V4.

7 hours ago, forshaw said:

But get a sense as to what to expect in terms of improvement if I switch now. I don't want to be disappointed because my expectations were incorrect.

Cheers.

Forshaw

I can almost guarantee 100% that you will see an increase in performance & from a visual standpoint, it's like night and day.

You need PTA to make P3D look awesome, but it's a small investment that makes a huge difference IMHO.

9 hours ago, forshaw said:

My GPU a GTX 1060 6GB. So I guess my GPU will be "Paws Up" most of the time in protest of all of the hard work. So this will definitely be a concern, I am not going to upgrade my GPU just for P3D. 

To give you a counter point to the "must have a 1070" thing, I've been flying in P3D for years with an i5-2500K paired with a GTX970 just fine and dandy.  Sure I can't max the sliders out, and yeah the frames could be better in big cities, but it's certainly flyable and runs just fine.  Your 1060 would do even better than my system has for all these years.

As for the FSX vs P3D topic, cloud shadows alone makes the jump worth it.  P3D does many things better than FSX but the cloud shadowing is such a huge feature for immersion.

Edited August 10, 20196 yr by Mengy